It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership • Hacker News Board

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#511

Post by wsve » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 11:23 PM UTC

Ferret7446 wrote: post #160

wsve wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your examples make clear to the customer that their access is temporary and conditional on their continued and ongoing payment, and that ownership of the good/service is retained by the seller. On the other hand, "buying a game" is given the guise of ownership, despite true ownership still being retained by the seller, obscured by the fact you're making a one-time payment. It'd be reasonable if the terminology us…

It is now in California, as they passed more "useless" regulation requiring digital "sales" to use different terminology than "buy", yet what people are asking for is clearly not what they want because as predicted this terminology enforcement doesn't change a thing. Clearly, more thoughtless regulation will solve the problem this time.

Don't blame "regulation" on this, as if politicians do this because they're dogmatically "pro-regulation". That is not a real political stance, and it's childish to frame these bills in that manner.

California AB 2426 is a very deliberate and well considered bill, because it does exactly what it was designed to do: feign consumer protections, while leaving easy loopholes for those companies the bill protects. Those legislators who signed it did not have consumer protections in mind. Gavin Newsom is not interested in rocking the boat of corporate power, and neither are the lobbyists who pushed for that bill.

Don't blame "regulations". Blame, and vote out, the authors and signers, because they clearly do not have your interests in mind.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#512

Post by wsve » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 11:31 PM UTC

nfw2 wrote: post #189

wsve wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your examples make clear to the customer that their access is temporary and conditional on their continued and ongoing payment, and that ownership of the good/service is retained by the seller. On the other hand, "buying a game" is given the guise of ownership, despite true ownership still being retained by the seller, obscured by the fact you're making a one-time payment. It'd be reasonable if the terminology us…

Rent and Subscribe would NOT be clear because they imply ongoing payment. Consumers care mostly about if they are paying money once or on an ongoing basis, not abstract things like DRM.

> Rent and Subscribe would NOT be clear because they imply ongoing payment.

Yes, exactly. Video game distributors should be forced to choose a pricing model: "Sell", or "Rent". No more "License, until we or the DRM service decides to revoke access for any reason/we go out of business/the DRM service goes out of business".

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#513

Post by password4321 » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 11:32 PM UTC

scared_together wrote: post #258

password4321 wrote: post #7

Ownership as in resale-able. Eventually someone important enough will force digital resales to become reality, changing everything to require KYC.

> Eventually someone important enough will force digital resales to become reality Honest question: why? Why would anyone important enough to hold that power actually use it to force resales to exist? Who actually has the incentives to make this happen?

Some kid will grow up after not getting access to their parent's collection.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#514

Post by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS » Mon, Jul 06, 2026, 11:53 PM UTC

ragequittah wrote: post #439

account42 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "somewhat longer heatwave" isn't as scary sounding as "HOTTEST EVER RECORDED TEMPERATURE IN $LOCALE!!!!!!" which is why all the scaremongers keep screaming the latter.

We're warned of heatwaves and given instructions on how to not die all the time now. Not once did this occur when I was a child where I live. Record temperatures are more shown as an almanac style this is what's happened today whenever I see them. Personally I wish more scaremongering were happening right now.

> Personally I wish more scaremongering were happening right now.

You might be the first person in history to say that

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#515

Post by wsve » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 12:21 AM UTC

nfw2 wrote: post #155

fragmede wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but first sale doctrine on physical goods means that I can take my Playstation game, which only works on Playstations, and sell it to.a friend after I'm done playing it, or pick up a copy 5-10 years after the game was originally published for cheap from a second hand store like Goodwill. People do understand that, and are understandably pissed off that those same rights don't transfer to the digital realm. If I…

I am understandably pissed that Apple no longer makes small 5-inch iphones because I like them. But other consumers like the bigger phones, so Apple discontinued the mini line. Is Apple doing me an injustice by not selling me the good that I want? Is this a question of rights or consumer preferences?

Geez man. I've seen your replies in this thread multiple times. At this point, I have to wonder: why are you so against legislating the actual sale of ownership of video games? How could enacting this theoretical legislation, that you believe is a consumer "preference" (hard disagree, but I'll allow for argument) be in any way detrimental to you? What compels you to lick the boot to a polished shine?

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#516

Post by Mr_Minderbinder » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 12:38 AM UTC

> If anything, video games were late compared to something like the music industry, where not owning your music has been the status quo for a while now!

My perception is that the music industry is better than other parts of the entertainment industry in this regard. I imagine what the author is thinking of is streaming, which I treat as a sort of on-demand radio. There is an understanding that it is ephemeral. A customer concerned with “owning” their music would not be confused by this and seek another avenue, which in the case of the music industry is both wider, richer and more free than those of adjacent industries.

The common dedicated formats used for distribution: the compact disc and vinyl record, do not have copy protection, which is a better situation than what movies and video games are in. Online music stores invariably deliver you music as a simple computer file, with no copy protection or platform or connectivity requirements. This is the rule rather than the exception, which is not the case when making movie or video game purchases on these types of stores.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#517

Post by throw10920 » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 1:26 AM UTC

feoren wrote: post #491

zahlman wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an impressively uncharitable read of GP, and in my view totally uncalled for. People who "generally" oppose "regulation", in my experience, very often have very good reasons for having adopted that stance, that are rooted in examination (or at least knowledge) of several actually existing regulations. And I would hope we all agree that there are plenty of really bad regulations out there. (If not: I invite yo…

I am criticizing a common pattern of thought that I observe, including in the post I responded to. "I'm against X in general, but in this case X is warranted" is a very dangerous thought process, and I believe a good way to try to dispel it is to ask "are all the special cases just ones that you understand and affect you personally, and all the 'in general' ones that you don't?". It doesn't need to be 100% accurate t…

"Criticizing a common pattern of thought that I observe" is just weasel language for strawmanning and/or ad hominem. Your initial comment is extremely uncharitable, breaks a ton of HN rules, and is completely fallacious with zero (edit: negative, because it actively degrades discourse on HN) value to it. Suggest not doing that.

Your comment trying to defend yourself is also full of fallacies and emotional manipulation. Don't do that either.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#518

Post by tonyhart7 » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 1:36 AM UTC

j1elo wrote: post #373

tonyhart7 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Anything that you BUY needs to be your property." do you own the film when you buy ticket to cinema ????

The film is going to be projected anyways. You are buying the right to be present in the room when that happens. You can transfer that right (give the ticket to someone else), even sell it. Before the projection happens, the company might want to close and cancel that projection, in which case you are left without the chance to attend and exercise your purchased service; in that case, the company would (should) refun…

"We should be able to freely exchange games between us"

no, because you already play it

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#519

Post by hsbauauvhabzb » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 1:38 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #441

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No but you don’t expect the cinema to stop the movie half way through without giving you a refund, and would expect that you could legally resell a purchased ticket to your friend if you can’t attend the screening.

But that's not what's happening here - Sony can't take physical disks you own away from you. As for resale, interesting you bring up tickets as scalping / reselling them is a major issue, which is also hostile to consumers as they can pay multiples of the original selling price for high profile concerts and events, which has led to legislation and / or industry rules that prevent resale or at least prevent it through…

No, we were talking about cinemas, not live shows. Stop moving the goal posts.

Re: It's not about physical vs. digital games, it's about ownership

#520

Post by NikolaNovak » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 1:47 AM UTC

Delk wrote: post #487

NikolaNovak wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes; and to make it extremely politically explosive, I do enjoy observing American politics and seeing each side (there are, brilliantly, two, because there ARE only two sides to every story and they neatly correlate with each other 100%:) massively enlarge the government, apply massive new restrictive regulations, but one side claims they don't do that because of somewhat specific types of massive government regulat…

> a tiny minority of people care about [...] You know, unlike the minor issues of war and peace and hunger and poverty and economics and minority rights et cetera :) The complexity and realism of some particular regulation aside, I honestly don't understand dismissing other people's opinions on the grounds that not a lot of people care about them. Should people not have an opinion because lots of other people don't s…

I agree ; that's the principle of democracy :)

And it works both ways - people are allowed to care about something, express that, and others are allowed to not care about it, and express that :)

(in this case, as I mentioned in sibling comment, I care about the same cause as well:).